Subject: [Sidrops] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidrops-rtr-keying-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 11:52:41 -0800

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidrops-rtr-keying-03: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidrops-rtr-keying/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As this is a BCP, I don't understand why transport encryption of the private
key is not normatively required. Could you explain?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Given that this document is ostensibly specifying a "best" current practice, I
would have expected a clearer expression of preference for the router-driven
method over the operator-driven method, e.g., something like BGPsec-speaking
routers MUST implement the router-driven method and MAY implement the
operator-driven method. Or if there is some exception case that makes that MUST
problematic, it would at least be good to emphasize which one of these is
actually "best" from a security perspective, even though the other one is being
specified and we know will be used.

Nit in Section 1:

s/gritty details/details of the BGPsec protocol/